9/11 Conspiracy Stuff

First topic message reminder :

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You're clearly an imbecile who probably believes 911 was an inside job.

I actually do believe that

EX7EY - in this conspiracy theory, why would they demolish WT7?  What would have been the great thinking behind demolishing WT7?  No aircraft hit WT7.   If this was all a meticulously planned al Qaeda - US Government operation, why would they make an elementary mistake of detonating a building that wasn't hit by an aircraft?

Nore Staat wrote:EX7EY - in this conspiracy theory, why would they demolish WT7?  What would have been the great thinking behind demolishing WT7?  No aircraft hit WT7.   If this was all a meticulously planned al Qaeda - US Government operation, why would they make an elementary mistake of detonating a building that wasn't hit by an aircraft?

There are a few theories as to why WTC 7 would have been brought down as well. And as I have already stated, I am not pretending to have all the facts. I have posed a few questions here that nobody really wants to address, I took 30 seconds to googl some facts about controlled demolitions that nobody really wants to address because it doesn't fit into 9/11 officialdom. What I would suggest is for anybody that is genuinely interested is to do a bit of your own research and see how you feel afterward.

If you are a closed minded individual like Hammersmith that already knows they can not be swayed no matter what, then it is pointless even discussing it whatsover anyway.

It's just nonsense.

It's like the current thing being peddled that the war in Syria was engineered by America because they wouldn't let them run a gas mainline through their territory.

If you wanted to engineer a plot simply crashing the planes would have been enough, no need to collapse the buildings. This also took them into Afghanistan not Iraq which has been a disaster for the US.

Your facts about controlled explosions have no relevance to a 104 storey building, you said that yourself but still persevere thinking it has. Personally think it takes more than googling some 'facts' on things like this, nobody has the answers because the experts have already given them to us.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Your facts about controlled explosions have no relevance to a 104 storey building, you said that yourself but still persevere thinking it has. Personally think it takes more than googling some 'facts' on things like this, nobody has the answers because the experts have already given them to us.

Hammersmith I don't know what you are talking about and neither do you. I googled facts about controlled demolitions and got to a website that has actually nothing to do with 9/11. the website was discussing the fact that once you start trying to knock over a building of 20 stories or more it becomes a very delicate process, which requires a high degree of planning and skill. And that only a few companies in the World attempt controlled implosions. Implosion being that a building falls into its own footprint. Which is exactly what happened on 9/11.

Where have I said these facts have no relevance? These facts are very relevant.

Is English not your first language or can you just not read very well??

The facts have no relevance at all, the WTC was 104 stories high, no controlled explosions have been attempted on a building of that size, the largest being the 47 storey Singer building back in the 1960's. The vast difference in size makes the articles your reading irrelevant, they make no reference to buildings that large and all you can take from it is that a few companies demolish 20+ storey buildings, beyond that is your own mind connecting dots that aren't there.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The facts have no relevance at all, the WTC was 104 stories high, no controlled explosions have been attempted on a building of that size, the largest being the 47 storey Singer building back in the 1960's. The vast difference in size makes the articles your reading irrelevant, they make no reference to buildings that large and all you can take from it is that a few companies demolish 20+ storey buildings, beyond that is your own mind connecting dots that aren't there.

Whether or not 9/11 was an inside job. What you are writing and the way in which you are writing it is enough proof that you are not a very intellegent person. I kind of feel sorry for you.

I refernced that website to make a very simple point, and it's quite clear that you can't grasp that very simple point.

In the simplest possible terms I can think of, just for you Hammer.

In order for a building to implode, and collapse into it's own footprint, requires extensive planning, and it needs to be carried out with extreme precision.

The buildings that collapsed as a result of 9/11, collapsed into their own footprints, THEY WERE OVER 100 STORIES HIGH. Yet they managed to collapse into their own footprints without this clinical planning and precision.

Is the point I'm making registering yet?? Just a yes or no. Whether or not you agree just want know that you actually understand.

What is clear is that you're grasping at straws, you make statements and don't back them up and instead expect others to make sense of what you're attempting to say.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:What is clear is that you're grasping at straws, you make statements and don't back them up and instead expect others to make sense of what you're attempting to say.

Oh dear, I genuinely give up with you I do. I do back what I say up. I've backed it up all the way through this thread, it's their in black and white.

Somebody needs to improve the foe function. When I hit foe I didn't think it would give me the option to display the posts anyway. I tried not to, I really did.

This man is so unintellegent it's unfair on the poor fellow. I'd love to know what you do for a living. I'm sure it befits a man of your extraordinary level of intellegence

Maybe you are a pro boxer Hammersmith. Because the only thing I can actually think of is that you get bashed in the head for a living haha.

You've not backed up anything hence why it's just an inane conspiracy theory yet you have the temerity to call anyone who disagrees unintelligent, when pressed there's nothing there.

I'm going to take the opinion of the official reports based on evidence given by the best experts in their fields over you.

Untrue. There are various other people on here that obviosuly don't agree. You are the only one that evidently has less intellegence than a boiled potato.

Have you got any other insults than stating every post that i'm unintelligent? It's not the sign of a forward thinker.

Continuing on with this conspiracy theory:
a) US officials rigged up explosives in WT1, WT2 and for some unknown reason they rigged up explosives also in WT7. They trained some Al Qaeda Saudi Arabians to fly one aircraft into WT1 and another into WT2. After an hour or so they detonate WT2 in a controlled demolition (explosive charges that were silent) after another hour they detonate WT1 in a controlled demolition. Then for some reason they decide to bring down WT7 in a controlled demolition.
b) US officials wait for a third aircraft flown by al Qaeda suicide operatives to collide with the Pentagon. Then they fire a missile at the Pentagon.
c) Presumably they had something planned for the White House because the fourth plane was heading towards it before a few passengers managed to stampede the cockpit and bring the craft down (all picked up by the cockpit microphone as indicated by the black box).

And all this was done so that the US could invade Afghanistan and then two years later Iraq.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The facts have no relevance at all, the WTC was 104 stories high, no controlled explosions have been attempted on a building of that size, the largest being the 47 storey Singer building back in the 1960's. The vast difference in size makes the articles your reading irrelevant, they make no reference to buildings that large and all you can take from it is that a few companies demolish 20+ storey buildings, beyond that is your own mind connecting dots that aren't there.

This really is the stupidest thing I've read for a long time. In this one ignorant statement you've managed to consign all scientific endeavours to the waste bin of history. Science is built on principles and extrapolation of those principles. What applies to a twenty story building applies to a 100 story building, if anything it's even harder to get a 100 story building to collapse on itself - which I believe if the point EX was trying to make - yet we're supposed to believe that 3 of the tallest structures in the world collapsed right onto their own footprints at the same speed that it takes a stone to fall from the sky (ie no resistance) after being struck by a plane (coming at an angle) and a few floors burning for less than a couple of hours? Doesn't stack up. What about all the floors that were not damaged by fire? How did they just collapse so fast?

Nore Staat wrote:Continuing on with this conspiracy theory:
a) US officials rigged up explosives in WT1, WT2 and for some unknown reason they rigged up explosives also in WT7.  They trained some Al Qaeda Saudi Arabians to fly one aircraft into WT1 and another into WT2.  After an hour or so they detonate WT2 in a controlled demolition (explosive charges that were silent) after another hour they detonate WT1 in a controlled demolition.  Then for some reason they decide to bring down WT7 in a controlled demolition.
b)  US officials wait for a third aircraft flown by al Qaeda suicide operatives to collide with the Pentagon.  Then they fire a missile at the Pentagon.
c)  Presumably they had something planned for the White House because the fourth plane was heading towards it before a few passengers managed to stampede the cockpit and bring the craft down (all picked up by the cockpit microphone as indicated by the black box).

And all this was done so that the US could invade Afghanistan and then two years later Iraq.

The problem with a lot of that is you're adding your own little tid bits in and listing them as facts. At least I have the good grace to differentiate between facts and theory.

This is better than a Lee Evans stand up, i'm assuming both of you are highly paid engineers who specialise in multi-storey buildings?

EX7EY wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:Continuing on with this conspiracy theory:
a) US officials rigged up explosives in WT1, WT2 and for some unknown reason they rigged up explosives also in WT7.  They trained some Al Qaeda Saudi Arabians to fly one aircraft into WT1 and another into WT2.  After an hour or so they detonate WT2 in a controlled demolition (explosive charges that were silent) after another hour they detonate WT1 in a controlled demolition.  Then for some reason they decide to bring down WT7 in a controlled demolition.
b)  US officials wait for a third aircraft flown by al Qaeda suicide operatives to collide with the Pentagon.  Then they fire a missile at the Pentagon.
c)  Presumably they had something planned for the White House because the fourth plane was heading towards it before a few passengers managed to stampede the cockpit and bring the craft down (all picked up by the cockpit microphone as indicated by the black box).

And all this was done so that the US could invade Afghanistan and then two years later Iraq.

The problem with a lot of that is you're adding your own little tid bits in and listing them as facts. At least I have the good grace to differentiate between facts and theory.

I am not adding anything. The conspiracy theory includes the US firing a missile at the Pentagon. Do you have your own pet conspiracy?

No way a building can fall like that if the lower floors haven't been taken out by explosives imo

Hammersmith harrier wrote:This is better than a Lee Evans stand up, i'm assuming both of you are highly paid engineers who specialise in multi-storey buildings?

Another stupid comment. I'm certainly not a highly paid engineer. But you can go and reference one of the hundreds of them that also question the official 9/11 'facts' if you wish. You know, like I did earlier when I was busy not backing up my statements

Or do feel free to read this, http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/building-implosion.htm. It's official, it was written by somebody with a grain of intellegence, and it is completely unrelated to 9/11 conspiracy. I know reading is hard for you. Don't fret, I'll try and find an audio version.

emancipator wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The facts have no relevance at all, the WTC was 104 stories high, no controlled explosions have been attempted on a building of that size, the largest being the 47 storey Singer building back in the 1960's. The vast difference in size makes the articles your reading irrelevant, they make no reference to buildings that large and all you can take from it is that a few companies demolish 20+ storey buildings, beyond that is your own mind connecting dots that aren't there.

This really is the stupidest thing I've read for a long time. In this one ignorant statement you've managed to consign all scientific endeavours to the waste bin of history. Science is built on principles and extrapolation of those principles. What applies to a twenty story building applies to a 100 story building, if anything it's even harder to get a 100 story building to collapse on itself - which I believe if the point EX was trying to make - yet we're supposed to believe that 3 of the tallest structures in the world collapsed right onto their own footprints at the same speed that it takes a stone to fall from the sky (ie no resistance) after being struck by a plane (coming at an angle) and a few floors burning for less than a couple of hours? Doesn't stack up. What about all the floors that were not damaged by fire? How did they just collapse so fast?

There have been various studies by scientists and engineers (including NIST) that have shown fire alone was sufficient to bring the towers down as observed, which included state of the art thermomechanical modelling.

In the conspiracy theory - how do the explosive charges survive the fire before being detonated in a controlled demolition?
In the conspiracy theory - how were all the explosives set up, including all the wiring, without anyone noticing?

Nore Staat wrote:

EX7EY wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:Continuing on with this conspiracy theory:
a) US officials rigged up explosives in WT1, WT2 and for some unknown reason they rigged up explosives also in WT7.  They trained some Al Qaeda Saudi Arabians to fly one aircraft into WT1 and another into WT2.  After an hour or so they detonate WT2 in a controlled demolition (explosive charges that were silent) after another hour they detonate WT1 in a controlled demolition.  Then for some reason they decide to bring down WT7 in a controlled demolition.
b)  US officials wait for a third aircraft flown by al Qaeda suicide operatives to collide with the Pentagon.  Then they fire a missile at the Pentagon.
c)  Presumably they had something planned for the White House because the fourth plane was heading towards it before a few passengers managed to stampede the cockpit and bring the craft down (all picked up by the cockpit microphone as indicated by the black box).

And all this was done so that the US could invade Afghanistan and then two years later Iraq.

The problem with a lot of that is you're adding your own little tid bits in and listing them as facts. At least I have the good grace to differentiate between facts and theory.

I am not adding anything.  The conspiracy theory includes the US firing a missile at the Pentagon.  Do you have your own pet conspiracy?

Which conspiracy. There are many theories. You are adding that 'they' trained some Saudi Arabians to fly aircraft into buildings. Somebody apparently did, I havn't referenced anythin to do with that though. You are adding that there were 'silent' explosive charges. Who said that? In fact there are many, many witnsses that report big, loud explosions. You also said, 'US officials wait for a third aircraft flown by al Qaeda suicide operatives to collide with the Pentagon. Then they fire a missile at the Pentagon.' Who says that is othe order of events? in fact I question wether there was any plane whatsoever as far as the Pentagon is concerned, as there is zero physical or video evidence to support that. You are also assuming this was done just so hey could invade Iraq and Afghanistan. Certainly that is a big theory, but who said that was ONLY why they did it. nobody is professing to have all of the facts here.

Disagree by all means, but don't make things up.

EX7EY wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:

EX7EY wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:Continuing on with this conspiracy theory:
a) US officials rigged up explosives in WT1, WT2 and for some unknown reason they rigged up explosives also in WT7.  They trained some Al Qaeda Saudi Arabians to fly one aircraft into WT1 and another into WT2.  After an hour or so they detonate WT2 in a controlled demolition (explosive charges that were silent) after another hour they detonate WT1 in a controlled demolition.  Then for some reason they decide to bring down WT7 in a controlled demolition.
b)  US officials wait for a third aircraft flown by al Qaeda suicide operatives to collide with the Pentagon.  Then they fire a missile at the Pentagon.
c)  Presumably they had something planned for the White House because the fourth plane was heading towards it before a few passengers managed to stampede the cockpit and bring the craft down (all picked up by the cockpit microphone as indicated by the black box).

And all this was done so that the US could invade Afghanistan and then two years later Iraq.

The problem with a lot of that is you're adding your own little tid bits in and listing them as facts. At least I have the good grace to differentiate between facts and theory.

I am not adding anything.  The conspiracy theory includes the US firing a missile at the Pentagon.  Do you have your own pet conspiracy?

Which conspiracy. There are many theories. You are adding that 'they' trained some Saudi Arabians to fly aircraft into buildings. Somebody apparently did, I havn't referenced anythin to do with that though. You are adding that there were 'silent' explosive charges. Who said that? In fact there are many, many witnsses that report big, loud explosions.  You also said, 'US officials wait for a third aircraft flown by al Qaeda suicide operatives to collide with the Pentagon.  Then they fire a missile at the Pentagon.' Who says that is othe order of events? in fact I question wether there was any plane whatsoever as far as the Pentagon is concerned, as there is zero physical or video evidence to support that. You are also assuming this was done just so hey could invade Iraq and Afghanistan. Certainly that is a big theory, but who said that was ONLY why they did it. nobody is professing to have all of the facts here.

Disagree by all means, but don't make things up.

You are not making any sense.

In your view
a) How many planes were involved in this operation ... and what happened to them?
b) Who flew the planes?
c) How was the flying of the planes coordinated with the events of WT1, WT2, WT7 collapsing and the Pentagon being damaged?
d) Explain what happened with the United Airlines Flight 93 and what its involvement was in the conspiracy?
e) What was the point of it all?

emancipator wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The facts have no relevance at all, the WTC was 104 stories high, no controlled explosions have been attempted on a building of that size, the largest being the 47 storey Singer building back in the 1960's. The vast difference in size makes the articles your reading irrelevant, they make no reference to buildings that large and all you can take from it is that a few companies demolish 20+ storey buildings, beyond that is your own mind connecting dots that aren't there.

This really is the stupidest thing I've read for a long time. In this one ignorant statement you've managed to consign all scientific endeavours to the waste bin of history. Science is built on principles and extrapolation of those principles. What applies to a twenty story building applies to a 100 story building, if anything it's even harder to get a 100 story building to collapse on itself - which I believe if the point EX was trying to make - yet we're supposed to believe that 3 of the tallest structures in the world collapsed right onto their own footprints at the same speed that it takes a stone to fall from the sky (ie no resistance) after being struck by a plane (coming at an angle) and a few floors burning for less than a couple of hours? Doesn't stack up. What about all the floors that were not damaged by fire? How did they just collapse so fast?

Yes, that is exactly what i was getting at

Amazing how the conspiracy loons here are able to grasp simple points. But those who calls us fools and claim to have brains can't.

Nore Staat wrote:

emancipator wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The facts have no relevance at all, the WTC was 104 stories high, no controlled explosions have been attempted on a building of that size, the largest being the 47 storey Singer building back in the 1960's. The vast difference in size makes the articles your reading irrelevant, they make no reference to buildings that large and all you can take from it is that a few companies demolish 20+ storey buildings, beyond that is your own mind connecting dots that aren't there.

This really is the stupidest thing I've read for a long time. In this one ignorant statement you've managed to consign all scientific endeavours to the waste bin of history. Science is built on principles and extrapolation of those principles. What applies to a twenty story building applies to a 100 story building, if anything it's even harder to get a 100 story building to collapse on itself - which I believe if the point EX was trying to make - yet we're supposed to believe that 3 of the tallest structures in the world collapsed right onto their own footprints at the same speed that it takes a stone to fall from the sky (ie no resistance) after being struck by a plane (coming at an angle) and a few floors burning for less than a couple of hours? Doesn't stack up. What about all the floors that were not damaged by fire? How did they just collapse so fast?

There have been various studies by scientists and engineers (including NIST) that have shown fire alone was sufficient to bring the towers down as observed, which included state of the art thermomechanical modelling.

In the conspiracy theory - how do the explosive charges survive the fire before being detonated in a controlled demolition?  
In the conspiracy theory - how were all the explosives set up, including all the wiring, without anyone noticing?

There have been counter studies and more than a hundred experts in the field who've come out and said this is impossible. A fire that burned for just 52 minutes in one of the towers. A normal house wouldn't collapse after such a short fire. And then for the buildings to collapse at that speed - it's not possible without explosives.

As for the how's of it - you'd need to privy to the inside details to explain that and of course we're not. Suffice to say that the official story doesn't add up.

The why of it? Well there lots of possible justifications. Two wars have been fought on the back of this, homeland security, Patriot act that gives law enforcement powers of search, detainment without trial, mass surveillance, and so on. Don't underestimate the business of war and fear. It's the most profitable industry in the world.

Read this if you can be bothered:
There is no doubt that the attacks brought benefits. Indeed, several members of the Bush administration publicly said so. The president himself declared that the attacks provide “a great opportunity.” 2 Donald Rumsfeld stated that 9/11 created “the kind of opportunities that World War II offered, to refashion the world.” Condoleeza Rice had said the same thing in mind, telling senior members of the National Security Council to “think about ‘how do you capitalize on these opportunities’ to fundamentally change…the shape of the world.” 3 The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, issued by the Bush administration in September 2002, said: “The events of September 11, 2001, opened vast, new opportunities.” 4
Of course, the fact that these members of the Bush administration described attacks as opportunities after the fact does not necessarily mean that they could have anticipated in advance that attacks of this nature would bring such opportunities. However, all of these statements, except for the last one, were made shortly after 9/11. If the benefits could be seen so soon after the attacks, we can assume that, if these people were thinking about such attacks ahead of time, they could have anticipated that they would create these opportunities.
It would seem, therefore, that the Bush administration’s description of the attacks as providing opportunities, along with the fact that at least some of these opportunities could have been anticipated, were important parts of the “events surrounding 9/11” that “the fullest possible account” would have included. These descriptions of the attacks of 9/11 as opportunities, however, are not mentioned in The 9/11 Commission Report . 5
In any case, the idea that members of the Bush administration could have anticipated benefits from catastrophic attacks of the type that occurred on 9/11 does not rest entirely on inference from the fact that the attacks were seen as opportunities immediately after 9/11. Critics have referred to a pre-9/11 document that speaks of benefits that could accrue from catastrophic attacks. We need to see how the Commission responded to this part of the facts and circumstances surrounding 9/11.
“A New Pearl Harbor” To Advance The Pax Americana
In the fall of 2000, a year before 9/11, a document entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses was published by an organization calling itself the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). 6
This organization was formed by individuals who were members or at least supporters of the Reagan and Bush I administration, some of whom would go on to be central figures in the Bush II administration. These individuals include Richard Armitage, John Bolton, Dick Cheney, Zalmay Khalilzad (closely associated with Paul Wolfowitz 7 ), Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and James Woolsey. Libby (now Cheney’s chief of staff) and Wolfowitz (now Rumsfeld’s deputy) are listed as having participated directly in the project to produce Rebuilding America’s Defenses . Interestingly, John Lehman, a member of the 9/11 Commission, has been a member of the PNAC or at least publicly aligned with it. 8
This PNAC document, after bemoaning the fact that spending for military purposes no longer captured as much of the US budget as it once did, argues that it is necessary for defense spending to be greatly increased if the “American peace is to be maintained, and expanded,” because this Pax Americana “must have a secure foundation on unquestioned U.S. military preeminence.” The way to acquire and retain such military preeminence is to take full advantage of the “revolution in military affairs” made possible by technological advances. Bring about this transformation of US military forces will, however, probably be a long, slow process, partly because it will be very expensive. However, the document suggests, the process could occur more quickly if America suffered “some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.” 9 This statement, we would think, should have gotten the attention of some members of the 9/11 Commission.
After the 9/11 attacks came, moreover, the idea that they constituted a new Pearl Harbor was expressed by the president and some of his supporters. At the end of that very day, President Bush reportedly wrote in his diary: “The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today.” 10 Also, minutes after the president’s address to the nation earlier that day. Henry Kissinger posted an online article in which he said: “The government should be charged with a systematic response that, one hopes, will end the way the attack on Pearl Harbor ended – with the destruction of the system that is responsible for it.” 11

http://www.911truth.org/possible-motives-of-the-bush-administration-by-dr-david-ray-griffin/

I dont know what happend, but Im certain that we will never be told the truth, and thats wether the American government were complicite or not. They simply dont release the full story to the public on such matters. London bombings are the same. But one things that makes me wary is the Northwood files. Anybody who thinks false flag attacks are a complete conspiracy really needs to educate themselves

There's some good boxing discussion going on in the Off Topic section if anyone's interested!

Nore Staat wrote:

EX7EY wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:

EX7EY wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:Continuing on with this conspiracy theory:
a) US officials rigged up explosives in WT1, WT2 and for some unknown reason they rigged up explosives also in WT7.  They trained some Al Qaeda Saudi Arabians to fly one aircraft into WT1 and another into WT2.  After an hour or so they detonate WT2 in a controlled demolition (explosive charges that were silent) after another hour they detonate WT1 in a controlled demolition.  Then for some reason they decide to bring down WT7 in a controlled demolition.
b)  US officials wait for a third aircraft flown by al Qaeda suicide operatives to collide with the Pentagon.  Then they fire a missile at the Pentagon.
c)  Presumably they had something planned for the White House because the fourth plane was heading towards it before a few passengers managed to stampede the cockpit and bring the craft down (all picked up by the cockpit microphone as indicated by the black box).

And all this was done so that the US could invade Afghanistan and then two years later Iraq.

The problem with a lot of that is you're adding your own little tid bits in and listing them as facts. At least I have the good grace to differentiate between facts and theory.

I am not adding anything.  The conspiracy theory includes the US firing a missile at the Pentagon.  Do you have your own pet conspiracy?

Which conspiracy. There are many theories. You are adding that 'they' trained some Saudi Arabians to fly aircraft into buildings. Somebody apparently did, I havn't referenced anythin to do with that though. You are adding that there were 'silent' explosive charges. Who said that? In fact there are many, many witnsses that report big, loud explosions.  You also said, 'US officials wait for a third aircraft flown by al Qaeda suicide operatives to collide with the Pentagon.  Then they fire a missile at the Pentagon.' Who says that is othe order of events? in fact I question wether there was any plane whatsoever as far as the Pentagon is concerned, as there is zero physical or video evidence to support that. You are also assuming this was done just so hey could invade Iraq and Afghanistan. Certainly that is a big theory, but who said that was ONLY why they did it. nobody is professing to have all of the facts here.

Disagree by all means, but don't make things up.

You are not making any sense.

In your view
a) How many planes were involved in this operation ... and what happened to them?
b) Who flew the planes?
c) How was the flying of the planes coordinated with the events of WT1, WT2, WT7 collapsing and the Pentagon being damaged?
d) Explain what happened with the United Airlines Flight 93 and what its involvement was in the conspiracy?
e) What was the point of it all?

I really don't understand how I haven't made any sense. And to be honest I genuinely am tired of discussing it here now. Some people don't want to know anyway and that's fine.

I have made sense all the way through this as far as I am concerned.

I was just pointing out that you are including things in your statements that I haven't even said. And you are making certain presumptions. Let's leave it here folks and agree to disagree. Maybe it's time to redirect this thread into the off topic section?

Talk about how the building collapsed and whether it should or should not collapse like that for me is not hugely helpful. I'd guess none of us are qualified in a related field. Even if we are I'm not sure it helps. The only way we would know if the buildings collapsed as expected would be to build exact replicas, fill them with exactly the same weight, equipment etc and then when the wind and weather conditions exist fly planes of the same model with exactly the same fuel load in to them at exactly the same angle and speed. In short do something that is never going to happen. Quoting "experts" is all well and good but I would posit if anyone could be arsed to undertake the exercise it would be easy enough to find countless other experts that would say the buildings reacted in exactly the way one would expect.

What I think is a far more useful exercise with any conspiracy theory is if you don't believe the official version of events lay out exactly what you do believe and, as I did early with the controlled explosions theory, outline exactly what it takes to make your theory happen. To get that theory from two shadowy government figures meeting in a smoky room to it actually becoming a reality. Ask yourself how many people would need to be involved, how many walks of life and different agencies they would need to come from, when they would be able to do this, how long it would take to plan, how much boring stuff like admin support you'd need, how you would cover your tracks, how to guarantee there is no paper trail, how to legislate for human weakness, conscience or inefficiency and perhaps more importantly how the bleeding hell you'd pay for the thing, given the cost surely runs into millions.

Remember in something like this or the JFK assassination you're asking people to commit treason and murder and have their name forever go down in history as a traitor, you might find a few who share your somewhat shaky rationale for doing such a thing but the vast many would want paying a shedload of money. Where does this money come from, how do you get it to them without a paper trail? What do you do with the countless folk who don't want any part of a hugely risky and fairly hair brained scheme?

If for every part of the hugely complicated and secretive plot you can adequately answer each and everyone of these questions you may, just may be able to come to the conclusion there is a conspiracy. However I think it far more likely you'd come to the conclusion it is all a little ridiculously implausible or you certainly should do.

I agree with that sentiment rowley.

As you say individual parts might seem questionable but the sheer size of an entire conspiracy makes it unlikely.

Staging a terrorist attack by flying a plane into one of the world trade centres would have given the US government sufficient backing for all of its supposed motives re legislation, war mongering etc without "collapsing" the towers etc

Hats the biggest thing for me in accepting there was no conspiracy.

What one should not do is assume that if the US government took the 9/11 attacks as a tenuous rationale to launch various attacks in the middle east, which is a reasonable argument, it automatically follows they were involved in the attacks.

I frequently use the missus being away for the weekend as an excuse to go on the lash and live on takeaways. Doesn't mean I contrive hugely complicated plots to get her to go away for the weekend.

Yes but if you wanted to do that you'd probably say you won spa tickets at work, not arrange for the illuminati to kill her mother.

I don't think the us gov was involved, but if they were I doubt they'd have thought blowing up 3 skyscrapers and crashing into the pentagon and White House was the way to go about it.

I do want to get out of going to her work Christmas do though. I can feel a plan beginning to formulate.

Just get bladdered at it, will be a few days/weeks of cold shoulder and a telling off but you won't get invites to another one/

There are probably 100's of thousands, if not millions, of Archtects, Building Surveyors, Civil Engineers and 'demolition experts' who could provide a qualified and somewhat unified version of events backed up by physics. Instead, a 100 of so qualified 'experts' say it was impossible for the buildings to fall like that, on social media or some other two bob website. Probably want to be famous or stand out from the crowd so spout this sort of crap.

Also, I doubt the US government were involved in the attacks. Governments are canny at getting enough people to support what they want, within reason. All they have to do is tell a white lie to the right wing media, then watch it grow. There's certainly no need to do a 9/11 to cajole people.

Emancipator & EX7EY: read the scientific & engineering reports.  It has all been explained.  There were no explosions immediately before the buildings collapse.  If you have seen a building brought down by a controlled explosion, the explosions occur first, and this is picked up by microphones.  There is an explosion with dust moving outwards, but there is no immediate collapse because of the effect of inertia.  Mass takes time to accelerate from being at rest.  Then the building starts to fall from the point above the explosion.  This is very easily picked up in analysing the sounds with the visuals.  Bang, then a pause until the mass has time to accelerate to a speed that is noticeable.  There were no controlled explosions for these buildings.  Explosives have a distinct sound signature.  There were no explosives.

This was discussed in the link I provided with the NIST scientist focussing on WT7.  The journalist pushing the conspiracy theory wanted to know if the charges could have gone off silently.  The scientist said no and said they should read the 100+ page report summarising the results of their three year modelling study.  They have explained how WT1, WT2 and WT7 were brought down without the need to conjecture carefully distributed charges in the building etc.

Once the mechanical failure has occurred, the building above the mechanical failure, starts to fall, slamming into the building below the mechanical failure, then you get the noise of the top part of the building slamming successively into the floors below, each floor collapsing in turn due to the impact, and you get a concertina type noise, bang, bang, bang ... but the sound signature for these bangs are different to the bang of a chemical explosive.

Visual images show the collapse starts in WT1 and WT2 at the point where the aircraft slammed into the two buildings.  This is the point where damage to main load pillars occurred due to the physical impact, where parts of the aircraft went through the floors and out the back, weakening the structure, and where more or less full fuel tanks from the aircraft ripped open and caught fire.  The kerosene fire caused further weakening of the structure, that in a short period of time caused a complete failure.  It was at the point of impact that the structure failed and where the building started collapsing.  

In your chemical explosive theory the chemical explosives would have to be packed on the floors the aircraft crashed into - because that was where the buildings initially failed and it was from there that they collapsed (visual evidence).  But of course if there had have been chemical explosives, they would have exploded immediately on impact of the aircraft - but this of course didn't happen.

In fact the whole chemical explosive scenario and controlled implosion is beyond ludicrous and doesn't fit the evidence.

Regarding "free fall collapse". The North Tower was hit 15 storeys below the top, and the South Tower was hit 22 storeys below the top. The failure of the South Tower caused the top 22 storeys to fall successively into the floors below - individual floors would not have the strength to withstand the weight of a 22 storey building falling onto it, which would become 23 storeys, then 24 storeys ... the collapsing top part of the building would get heavier and heavier as it collected more floors as it fell - it would collapse close to the free fall rate of the top part of the building. For the north tower the collapse started with a 15 storey building falling onto successive floors and the collapse would occur at close to the free fall rate of a 15 storey building. Models predict that once the initial failure occurred at the impact level it would have taken the south tower about 11 seconds to collapse and the north tower about 13 seconds to collapse in line with observation.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8QLyum1gxBc

We're just going round in circles really now. You still haven't explained how wtc 7 also collapsed into its own footprint when it wasn't hit by any plane.

You, are basically telling me that fire and structural damage is enough to do that. Yet official material re controlled demolition of a building, getting it to implode and collapse into its own footprint, is a delicate science which requires meticulous planning and execution. So much so that only a few companies in the entire world undertake such work.

So either the science that the demolition industry is based upon is completely wrong. Or they are not telling the whole story of exactly what happened on 9/11. Or finally, a HUGE coincidence occurred on that day and three buildings managed to collapse into their own footprints, in the same manner you would expect to see during a controlled demo.

Not to mention WTC 7 was reported as collapsed 20 minutes before it actually did, by the BBC. PLEASE EXPLAIN THAT.

It's all well and good spouting the official lines, but I already know them all.

Herman Jaeger wrote:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8QLyum1gxBc

Great video. Nobody cares though. The laws of physics didn't count that day apparently.

It's amazing that all of the qualified people that dispute the official story are all kooks that are lying.

This is getting into tinfoil hat territory.

So are the BBC in on it too? The illuminati have managed this incredibly difficult and intricate plan but someone has made a balls up informing the BBC before the event?

No one has ever managed a controlled demolition for a building of that size, yet they've done it in secret - for the first time and none of the demolition crew/company have let any details slip?

Ent wrote:This is getting into tinfoil hat territory.

So are the BBC in on it too? The illuminati have managed this incredibly difficult and intricate plan but someone has made a balls up informing the BBC before the event?

No one has ever managed a controlled demolition for a building of that size, yet they've done it in secret - for the first time and none of the demolition crew/company have let any details slip?

Still no answer or explanation. Just deflection and ridicule.

So are you saying that the reporting of WTC 7 as collapsed before it actually did IS just merely a coincidence? Just a yes or no will do, because it either was or it wasn't.

How many comments are there in this thread? Quite a few, and nobody has said the word Illuminati other than yourself. Another person who has looked no further than official stories, yet is more than happy to ridicule those that have invested a lot of time looking at the facts and theories surrounding the whole thing.

This is how it all works though isn't it. People just spout words like, tin foil hat and, illuminati. Just make a mockery of people and try to make them sound like crazies. Then the majority of people, who don't like to go against the grain quickly get onside with officialdom and that's the end of the matter.

I really don't care what people say. If all you can do is try to mock and provide me with links and reports to the official investigation then you aren't going to sway me.

Those three buildings falling in the way they did defies basic physics. Simple as that I'm afraid.

An answer for what?

Can you please explain what you think the significance of the BBC reporting a building collapsing before it did has? Do you think the BBC was in on it etc?

The BBC and other news agencies reported a lot of things that day, ranging from a light aircraft hitting one tower to 10 planes being in the air. It was a very confusing day with live reporting.

If you think the buildings were collapsed deliberately who did it? Like you say it is a very precise science with very few people capable of doing t and no one has ever done it on bullildings of that size.

EX7EY wrote:This is how it all works though isn't it. People just spout words like, tin foil hat and, illuminati. Just make a mockery of people and try to make them sound like crazies. Then the majority of people, who don't like to go against the grain quickly get onside with officialdom and that's the end of the matter.

I really don't care what people say. If all you can do is try to mock and provide me with links and reports to the official investigation then you aren't going to sway me.

Those three buildings falling in the way they did defies basic physics. Simple as that I'm afraid.

It has been explained how they collapsed, you just choose to ignore it.

A conspiracy theory has to be plausible and this isn't.

No one would have conceived such a stupid self attack, simple as that.

Ent wrote:An answer for what?

Can you please explain what you think the significance of the BBC reporting a building collapsing before it did has? Do you think the BBC was in on it etc?

The BBC and other news agencies reported a lot of things that day, ranging from a light aircraft hitting one tower to 10 planes being in the air. It was a very confusing day with live reporting.

If you think the buildings were collapsed deliberately who did it? Like you say it is a very precise science with very few people capable of doing t and no one has ever done it on bullildings of that size.

I give up, I really do. I'm going to the pub

Not much point having a discussion with you is there?

Like you say you are adamant this was an inside job and won't change your mind no matter what evidence is provided or what anyone says.

You won't even engage in a discussion about the significance of the "facts" you state to back up your theory.

Ent wrote:This is getting into tinfoil hat territory.

So are the BBC in on it too? The illuminati have managed this incredibly difficult and intricate plan but someone has made a balls up informing the BBC before the event?

No one has ever managed a controlled demolition for a building of that size, yet they've done it in secret - for the first time and none of the demolition crew/company have let any details slip?

It was tinfoil hat territory from the beginning.

Apparently the science behind demolishing a 104 storey building is the same as demolishing a 20 storey building so they'll ignore any reason and take the word of a few loons on Youtube saying things they don't actually understand. Nore Staat explained the science behind how and why the towers collapsed but it doesn't fit in to their theories so they'll ignore it.

As I alluded to earlier one other thing that never stacks up with a conspiracy theory, this one in particular is where are all the people approached to take part who decline? Most have acknowledged on here this scheme would require a cast of hundreds, many of whom require quite niche and specialist skills.

Think about this sensibly you're approaching these people with the proposition of murdering thousands of innocent people and devastating a major city. Where are all the people asked to participate who say 'no of course not, that's absolutely mental' are we meant to believe everyone agrees or those that don't will say 'it's not for me but I wish you all the best'

This is the way of most conspiracy theories, happy to talk about such things as structural engineering despite having no qualifications to do so but when it comes to asking common sense practical questions any one of us are capable of asking, happy to ignore them.

I'll have a discussion all day long about this. But a) I'm genuinely going to pub at 1:30 and I need to make myself look pretty and b) i asked you a question and you just brushed it off and answered it with a question. So what's the point? If you can't even consider the reporting of the building as collapsed when it was still stood up is AT Least suspicious then there is no point.

I know all about the official story etc etc. NIST actually changed their official story after certain questions were posed and they haven't released certain pieces of information upon request either.

Personally, I think just by watching those three buildings come down in the manner they did is enough to trigger doubt in your mind. But I suppose that's where people's brains differ. When you actually go deeper into YOUR Own investigation it becomes harder and harder to believe the official story. Obviously if you are the type of person that takes the official line as gospel then there is no point in keep going round in circles.

And in fairness, the alternative view point does require you to believe that news organisations, world governments, world financial institutions are all in cahoots, or the majority anyway.

I accept that not everybody can do that, so fair enough. I find it very easy personally.

Have a good afternoon